Can a Catholic support abortion?

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Are you thinking about Noah, rather than Moses, if this isn't too pedantic of me.

Yes my bad I obviously meant Noah

Now care to answer the question?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Might be dangerous is a very open ended assertion.

I'll need something a hell of a lot more specific than might be dangerous

A woman is given 90% chance of survival is she continues with the pregnancy.

Should she be allowed avail of an abortion if she wishes to have one?

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes my bad I obviously meant Noah

Now care to answer the question?

Chapter 6 Genesis provides the answer

6.5 And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,

6:6 It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,

6:7 He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.

6:8 But Noe found grace before the Lord.

6:9 These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God.

6:10 And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth.

6:11 And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity.

6:12 And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth),

6:13 He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Exactly. You can't predict the future.

Everyday life is about risk. You can mitigate some element of that risk, by there will always be a residue of risk.

Some decisions carry more risk than others. If a pregnant woman has a condition that is potentially fatal at what point, if any, would you consider it acceptable to lose the pregnancy ( either by abortion or as a result of treatment ). Would it have to be in an emergency situation or can it be done as a preventative measure?

On another point do you think a pregnant woman should be denied medication or treatment that may cause harm to a foetus?

Jack Killian

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Pedantic BS to avoid answering the question

OK I will rephrase just for you seeing as it was so hard for you to understand :rolleyes:

Didn't your "god" murder infants and unborn babies when he flooded the earth killing everyone (except for Moses and his family)?

Errrr - Moses wasn't in the Ark.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

Some decisions carry more risk than others. If a pregnant woman has a condition that is potentially fatal at what point, if any, would you consider it acceptable to lose the pregnancy ( either by abortion or as a result of treatment ). Would it have to be in an emergency situation or can it be done as a preventative measure?

On another point do you think a pregnant woman should be denied medication or treatment that may cause harm to a foetus?

In my view the ethics applicable through double effect ought to be applied.

This example illustrates the principle of double effect.

The Church teaches that one may legitimately choose to carry out an act that is morally good, but which has one or more unintended side effects that are morally evil.

The principle of double effect has several guideline that must be met for an act to be morally acceptable:
· The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.
· The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.

· The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.
· The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.
· Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

As an example of how these criteria are applied to contemporary issues, consider a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy, i.e., one in which the pre-born child has become implanted in a place other than the uterus. In most
ectopic pregnancies, the pre-born child has become implanted in one of the mother’s Fallopian Tubes, which normally transport unfertilized eggs.

Because the Fallopian Tubes are very small and narrow, implantation within one of them presents serious problems. The growing child will eventually rupture the mother’s tube and cause a life-threatening situation. If the situation is left untreated, both mother and child will likely die.

By the time an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, the life of the pregnant mother is usually already in danger. If the Fallopian Tube is not already ruptured when the pregnancy is diagnosed, a person applies the principle of double effect to make a morally acceptable course of action. In this case, a person has two legitimate options:

1. Remove the entire Fallopian Tube
2. Remove a portion of the tube at the site of implantation.

The side effect of any of these procedures is the death of the unborn child; yet this end is not the end which the mother or physician intends or chooses.

Direct attacks on an unborn child are always forbidden, as in an elective
abortion which intends the death of the child. If the death of a child was not the intended effect, an abortion would
just be an early means of delivering a child. However, abortion is an evil means that attempts to bring about some good end, real or perceived. Therefore, shelling out the child from the damaged tube as a means of medical treatment is equivalent to an abortion, which is morally unacceptable. The death of the child would be the means of medical treatment.

If you allow and justify the direct killing of a pre-born child involved in an ectopic pregnancy, then you thereby justify other direct killings of pre-born children via other means.

In contrast, removing part or all of the Fallopian Tube is not an abortion. These treatments are morally permissible because they meet all of the conditions of the principle of double effect. The morally good end which is directly sought is to save the life of the mother. That which is directly treated is the life-threatening damaged tissue of the tube; therefore, the child is not directly attacked.

Removal of the damaged tube or a portion of the tube that contains the child is morally permissible, because the death of the child is an effect which may be foreseen, but it is unintentional. The good end of saving the mother’s life
is proportionate to the unintended evil side effect, that of the unborn child’s death.2

Further, because there are no other means by which the mother’s life may be saved, the principal of necessity also applies. There are no other medical procedures that can save both mother and child.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Chapter 6 Genesis provides the answer

So yes

Your "loving god" killed infants and unborn babies?

Yet your catechism states

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So yes

Your "loving god" killed infants and unborn babies?

Yet your catechism states

Genesis Chapter 6 gives an account for who was killed and why they were killed.

eviltwin

That's an interesting link, thanks Hinault. It's strange to me that removing a fallopian tube is okay but removing the embryo alone and leaving the tube intact is not. If a tube can be saved it should be seeing as the pregnancy isn't going to progress regardless.

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

In my view the ethics applicable through double effect ought to be applied.

This example illustrates the principle of double effect.

This is the same ridculous argument as "the death of the foetus was just an unintended side effect of the abortion" nonsense!

Only this time your have it as "the death of every man, woman and child except for Noah and his family was just an unintended side effect of intentionally flooding the earth to get rid of the evil contained within those people".

Unless you're arguing that the flood was just a massive baptism gone terribly wrong?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

That's an interesting link, thanks Hinault. It's strange to me that removing a fallopian tube is okay but removing the embryo alone and leaving the tube intact is not. If a tube can be saved it should be seeing as the pregnancy isn't going to progress regardless.

Abortion has only one intention, and it's only intention is entirely and completely evil, namely the killing of the unborn human life.

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

Abortion has only one intention, and it's only intention is entirely and completely evil, namely the killing of the unborn human life.

By your own nonsense logic, wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Genesis Chapter 6 gives an account for who was killed and why they were killed.

So unborn babies? Newborn babies? They had sin in their hearts? Good job we had a 900 year old man to keep us all going right? :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Abortion has only one intention, and it's only intention is entirely and completely evil, namely the killing of the unborn human life.

But "god" committing thousands (millions) of abortions out of spite is OK?

Speedwell

Also, it's apparently entirely and completely evil to save the life, health, and sanity of the living, born person. Noted.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So unborn babies? Newborn babies? They had sin in their hearts? Good job we had a 900 year old man to keep us all going right? :rolleyes:

Who here cited Genesis first? You.
You cited Genesis to make another of your bogus claims.

When we examine the account in Genesis it differs to the claims you made.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But "god" committing thousands (millions) of abortions out of spite is OK?

Supply chapter and verse to support this latest (bogus) claim:rolleyes:

Speedwell

hinault wrote: »

When we examine the account in Genesis it differs to the claims you made.

I was unaware that there was a single passage in the Bible of which the meaning was clear, unequivocal, and universally interpreted in exactly the same way by every bona fide believer.

hinault

Speedwell wrote: »

Also, it's apparently entirely and completely evil to save the life, health, and sanity of the living, born person. Noted.

Ecoptic pregnancies ain't life saving or healthy.

Your noting needs some work.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Supply chapter and verse to support this latest (bogus) claim:rolleyes:

Are you going to claim there were no newborn babies or unborn babies when the flood happened?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Ecoptic pregnancies ain't life saving or healthy.

Your noting needs some work.

But the treatment can be. Why remove a tube and a woman's chance of having another pregnancy when you don't have to?

Jack Killian

hinault wrote: »

Genesis Chapter 6 gives an account for who was killed and why they were killed.

This Chapter 6 ?

http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1&bible_chapter=6

God said to Noah, 'I have decided that the end has come for all living things, for the earth is full of lawlessness because of human beings. So I am now about to destroy them and the earth.

For my part I am going to send the flood, the waters, on earth, to destroy all living things having the breath of life under heaven; everything on earth is to perish.

18 But with you I shall establish my covenant and you will go aboard the ark, yourself, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives along with you.

Speedwell

hinault wrote: »

Ecoptic pregnancies ain't life saving or healthy.

Your noting needs some work.

It's "ectopic". And of course they aren't life saving or healthy, they're very dangerous. Ectopic pregnancy is not the only case in which a pregnancy needs to be interrupted.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you going to claim there were no newborn babies or unborn babies when the flood happened?

Does Genesis make such a claim? You being the Genesis expert.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Does Genesis make such a claim? You being the Genesis expert.

It doesn't say there isn't so we have to presume that hecause of all these "evil" people having lots of sex angered "god" then there had to be pregnant women right?












Psssssst


This is the part where you claim "God" stopped women from getting pregnant

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Abortion has only one intention, and it's only intention is entirely and completely evil, namely the killing of the unborn human life.

so an abortion carried out on a woman receiving cancer treatment so she can continue her treatment is a completely evil act?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

But the treatment can be. Why remove a tube and a woman's chance of having another pregnancy when you don't have to?

To prevent the recurrence of an ectopic pregnancy in future?
Or maybe the damage of the ectopic pregnancy has damaged the tube?

hinault

Speedwell wrote: »

And of course they aren't life saving or healthy, they're very dangerous. Ectopic pregnancy is not the only case in which a pregnancy needs to be interrupted.

I know.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It doesn't say there isn't so we have to presume that hecause of all these "evil" people having lots of sex angered "god" then there had to be pregnant women right?

You made an explicit claim.
But Genesis again doesn't affirm what you claim.

Speedwell

hinault wrote: »

I know.

I'm confused. You argue that it's permissible to perform an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (or, I suppose, any other extrauterine pregnancy). But you think abortion is evil, even in other cases where it might save the life or health of the mother. Am I getting this correct?

lawred2

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If Ireland was to have a referendum in the morning about legalising abortion in Ireland could a Catholic support it?
I'm guessing they couldn't. Or could they support it certain circumstances such as if the woman's life was at risk or fatal fetal abnormalities?

A person can support whatever they want

hinault

Speedwell wrote: »

You argue that it's permissible to perform an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (or, I suppose, any other extrauterine pregnancy).

Incorrect.

I cited the principle of double effect.

The only principle that applies to an abortion is the killing of the unborn human life.

Please desist from deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

You made an explicit claim.
But Genesis again doesn't affirm what you claim.

Never said it did

Can you prove that there were no pregnant women at the time of the flood? Because if not then we have to presume that there were and your "god" aborted those babies out of spite.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

To prevent the recurrence of an ectopic pregnancy in future?
Or maybe the damage of the ectopic pregnancy has damaged the tube?

If the tube cannot be saved that's one thing. But if it can then you are removing it unnecessarily simply to avoid dealing directly with the embryo which is unviable anyway. This is ludicrous.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Never said it did

Can you prove that there were no pregnant women at the time of the flood? Because if not then we have to presume that there were and your "god" aborted those babies out of spite.

You're resorting to presumption.
Presumption of an account contained in a book in which you do not believe.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

You're resorting to presumption.
Presumption of an account contained in a book in which you do not believe.

Well are you not doing the same? You're presuming that there were no new born children or pregnant women at the time of the flood right?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

If the tube cannot be saved that's one thing. But if it can then you are removing it unnecessarily simply to avoid dealing directly with the embryo which is unviable anyway. This is ludicrous.

I'm assuming here that the medical professionals have decided that the chance of a recurring ectopic pregnancy is real, and/or as a result of the ectopic pregnancy the tube has been damaged.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Abortion has only one intention, and it's only intention is entirely and completely evil, namely the killing of the unborn human life.

so an abortion carried out on a woman receiving cancer treatment so she can continue her treatment is a completely evil act?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

I'm assuming here that the medical professionals have decided that the chance of a recurring ectopic pregnancy is real, and/or as a result of the ectopic pregnancy the tube has been damaged.

So you're willing to go with best practice on the risk of possible future ectopic pregnancy but not those for women with high risk pregnancies.

hinault

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well are you not doing the same? You're presuming that there were no new born children or pregnant women at the time of the flood right?

I accept the account details given in Genesis.

You don't accept Genesis , or the rest the book which contains Genesis.

Now you expect me to accept that you accept a presumption concerning the account given in Genesis.:rolleyes:

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

So you're willing to go with best practice on the risk of possible future ectopic pregnancy but not those for women with high risk pregnancies.

I'm delighted that you accept that the principle of double effect and the ethics it's contains are best practice.

I consider ectopic pregnancies as high risk pregnancies.
Don't you?

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

I accept the account details given in Genesis.

You don't accept Genesis , or the rest the book which contains Genesis.

Now you expect me to accept that you accept a presumption concerning the account given in Genesis.:rolleyes:

So if you accept that others do not accept your beliefs, then why should we listen to them as an argument in the discussion? Without giving us any reason to believe them then everything you say is equivelant to burping the alphabet.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

I accept the account details given in Genesis.

You don't accept Genesis , or the rest the book which contains Genesis.

Now you expect me to accept that you accept a presumption concerning the account given in Genesis.:rolleyes:

Can you show me where it says in Genesis (or anywhere else in the bible) that there were no newborn or unborn children at the time of the flood?

tommy2bad

hinault wrote: »

I'm delighted that you accept that the principle of double effect and the ethics it's contains are best practice.

I consider ectopic pregnancies as high risk pregnancies.
Don't you?

Yeah No. He doesn't accept that theologians should set best medical practise. No one is arguing about double effect, that's not an issue every woman has the option to avail of it or refuse it.
We are talking about the areas where it's less black and white. Circumstances where a woman is pregnant and her life is at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term, circumstances where the life of unborn is non viable and destined to die in pain, circumstances where the life of the mother is not in mortal danger but in danger of debilitation or shortened due to continuing a pregnancy.
Circumstances where treating the woman within double effect constraints are more dangerous than a straight abortion.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

I'm delighted that you accept that the principle of double effect and the ethics it's contains are best practice.

I consider ectopic pregnancies as high risk pregnancies.
Don't you?

I don't accept the principle of double effect as best practice at all. I understand the principle of it from a religious point of view but religion should never dictate to medical professionals.

I consider an ectopic pregnancy extremely risky but in some cases it's treatment can be managed in a way that doesn't necessitate the removal of the tube. If you can save it by removing the embryo that's best for the woman but you're against that. Why remove healthy tissue if you have another option.

Jack Killian

hinault wrote: »

You made an explicit claim.
But Genesis again doesn't affirm what you claim.

It does actually - I posted the wording.

Since God used the phrase "all living things" and still saved Noah and his family and animals I reckon Timberr is off the hook for using the same phrase, even though it's technically inaccurate as Noah & all his crew survived.

Hang on ? Is that blasphemy ? To point out that God's phrasing was inaccurate and imprecise ?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't accept the principle of double effect as best practice at all.

That's a quick change of mind on your part.

eviltwin wrote: »

I understand the principle of it from a religious point of view but religion should never dictate to medical professionals.

Well, double effect principle is grounded in morality, not religion.

Morality should never dictate the performance of professionals?

Has the financial crisis not shown what happens when moral and ethical behaviour are abandoned.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

That's a quick change of mind on your part.



Well, double effect principle is grounded in morality, not religion.

Morality should never dictate the performance of professionals?

Has the financial crisis not shown what happens when moral and ethical behaviour are abandoned.

What has the financial crisis got to do with our health care system? A medical professional should be able to give treatment as per best practice standards without the religious fraternity getting involved.

hinault

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah No. He doesn't accept that theologians should set best medical practise. No one is arguing about double effect, that's not an issue every woman has the option to avail of it or refuse it.
We are talking about the areas where it's less black and white. Circumstances where a woman is pregnant and her life is at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term, circumstances where the life of unborn is non viable and destined to die in pain, circumstances where the life of the mother is not in mortal danger but in danger of debilitation or shortened due to continuing a pregnancy.
Circumstances where treating the woman within double effect constraints are more dangerous than a straight abortion.

An ectopic pregnancy presents a direct threat to the life of the mother if brought to full term.

It's difficult to think of another situation which provides a more explicit threat to the life of a pregnant mother.

Therefore the medical example I provided earlier outlining the principle of double effect, in a very dangerous medical situation, is most appropriate in my opinion.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

What has the financial crisis got to do with our health care system? A medical professional should be able to give treatment as per best practice standards without the religious fraternity getting involved.

"best practice" is a euphemism at best.

The best standards require conformance with what is morally correct.